If thought corrupts language, language can also corrupt thought.-- George Orwell
Common wisdom says the political left is where you will find all the college professors and the majority of authors, journalists and pundits – the people who make their living with words. So then why is it that for decades now, the right has creamed the left in the creative manipulation of language, while the left stands by with their collective thumbs in their mouths?
Here are just a few examples: death tax, right-to-life, Patriot Act, no-child-left-behind, death panels – I’m sure you have your own favorites. Mostly these are strong, evocative phrases that allow the right to simplify and own the conversation about an important, complex topic. I can’t think of an example where the left has done the same. They prefer language like “women’s reproductive rights,” which may be an accurate label, but which has the emotional punch of a phrase from an IRS publication.
Perhaps the most successful right-wing co-opting of language is what was done to the word “liberal.” Most politicians today would rather be thought of as a baby seal killer than as a liberal. (After all, who would want to be seen as “1. favoring political reform and progressive government. 2. tolerant 3. generous”?) And to paraphrase another great Republican use of words, here they go again.
“Progressive” is the new liberal. Glenn Beck and the Tea Baggers are hitting this one hard. In their view Progressives are behind all the evil in the world today, and Beck in particular never misses a chance to say so. But I don’t think they’ve reached the tipping point on this yet, and Teddy Roosevelt remains an enduring and popular representative of the progressive movement.
It’s not too late to fight back. If they aren’t for progress doesn’t that make them “regressives,” or people who want “to return to a previous, inferior state?” Who is going to represent them -- King Ludd?
Let’s put a label on them for a change: Republican = Regressive. Right = Regressive.
Pass this post, or at least these thoughts, on to others who may wish to see the concept of human progress continue to be an aspiration in American political life.
Posts
19 comments:
Where is the center, let alone the left, in all this? Am I missing something or has the far right left their flank exposed but the center and right are too shy to take a swing?
The return to original values a la the intent of the US Constitution should beat a path back the door of slavery. That was the intent of the founders. Forget about gun laws. The founders had obviously intutited the development of the automatic handgun. Yes, it will protect a woman sharpshooter who has the jump on a man but it will not protect any of us from a madman and a credit card.
I do believe special interests with money are driving the bus but there are political agendas at play too. And "conservatives," like you said, do not fit the definition of conservative. They have proved smart enough to shift the dialogue. The word propaganda comes to mind. The art of duplicity is alive and well and living in the GOP. Like Lincoln in the War Between the States, we face the unpleasant reality that we don't have the same caliber tacticians that the other side has.
Some good points, Hankster. I've been thinking along similar lines lately about what it would really mean to go back to what the founders wanted. Some of the things that come up are completely contrary to what the right loves.
1. The word corporation is never mentioned in the constitution. So how can they have rights?
2. We have this massive, world spanning defense establishment, but the founders wanted a limited standing army if any at all.
3. I'm not noticing anything in the constitution about sexual preference or the governments right to stick their nose into our sex and reproductive lives at all.
4. They never said this was a Christian nation. As a matter of fact they did state in our treaty with the Barbary States that we are not.
And these are just off the top of my head, I'm sure an actual study of the founders words could come up with more.
OMG! Now I know why I find cable news so confusing and cant figure out who is liberal and who is conservative half the time. In some cases they are both saying the same thing but different ways.
My way of saying this will be simplified, but here goes. When "push comes to shove", everyone goes back to their own corners. That is what is happening in the world today. Everyone is becoming so extreme just to try and prove a point.
For example. I consider myself a Christian and Republican. However I lean to the left where alot of things are concerned. Consequently, since we have been pulled into a religious war, I want the world that I believe in to know "WHO" I believe in. That never would have been the case before 911. I would have considered it more of a personal thing. Hopefully that made sense. Very few people will admit to trying to find a middle of the road balance. The way things are now, it would make them look like a traitor to either side.
Starting about 40 years ago, "Liberal" meant to me, someone not afraid to look outside the box and then stood up for those values. Now the word liberal - not all Liberals - means going so far left that the otherside of the aisle does not know where the Liberals are actually coming from.
Yes the progressive movement is important. But not when it destroys the backbone or basis of the way of life. Like they used to say 40 years ago, "Love it or leave it"
Believe me, I'm really not trying to start a fight. I'm on other boards where people turn into cats and dogs with each other when politics etc. comes up. The funny thing is they are supposed to be hobby boards. lol
You need to listen to Beck more than just once. You would have heard him discuss how Progressives come from both political parties. Bush, McCain, Teddy Roosevelt,Bloomburg, The Governator are just a few Republicans that expanded government. The left just seems to drag us into a nanny state deeper.
anti-progressive, is regressive regardless of who is for it.
I think The Other d"Blank is correct in pointing out that both parties contain "Progressives". The Progressives were responsible for Prohibition and that turned out to be a horrible idea. Thank God for the Regressives who got rid of Prohibition. Lets start a movement called The Pragmatists. The platform would involve practical, common sense solutions to today's problems. What a novel idea.
The center doesn't care! Tea baggers are just as nutty as tree huggers. Bible pumpers are just as flawed as the pipe dreamers. Neither the far right or the liberal left will win.The Center will do as it always has wade through the bullshit spewed by both, walk the line, although hardley ever heel to toe.and call ourselves Americans.
No mention of the biggest bug-a-boo word of all - socialist. Now that's what we need more of!
It's amazing to me how good the republicans are at using (or misusing) words. Their biggist feat has to be turning liberal into a word that nobody wants to be associated with. It might as well mean pedophile.
I think regressive is too big a word for the purpose. Backward may be a simpler description. It also comes with a natural perjoritive that doesn't come with regressive.
I've never heard prohibition described as a progressive program before. not sure i'd see something pushed by rural, tea-totaling, church folk as a progressive agenda item.
part of the right's agenda is to equate progressive with big government, but that isn't endemic at all. for example, the FDA was a progressive program, and the right has kept it so small none of us can be sure of any food we eat these days.
Of I'm pretty sure about the food I am not eating! If you aren't eating way low on the food chain, or either growing your own or know lots of details, your name might just as well be Joe Palooka.
The Democrats aren't altar boys but GW Bush got the fox right into the henhouse on the food industry. While the public has their knickers in a twist over health insurance, the food industry is making us sick, polluting our water and doing to immoral things to animals. Is this the America we want future generations to inherit? Government is the enabler, industry is calling the shots. Please tell me if the problem is more regulations or less?
The Progressive Movement believes that governmental policy can improve the lives of the general public. In the early 20th century the Progressive Movement with the support of religious leaders felt that alcohol was responsible for many problems in American life. As a result alcohol was banned. It is an excellent example of unexpected consequences of a poorly considered and misguided governmental policy designed to regulate people's lives. Look up Progressives and Prohibition.
I think we can all agree that prohibition was a bone headed idea. Let's not get bogged down with who proposed and passed a bad amendment 100 years ago.
On the other hand Progressives were responsible for the Pure Food and Drug Act (see Upton Sinclair), Child labor laws, the start of the national parks system and the birth of the environmental movement, among other ideas worth having and all of which were fought tooth and nail by conservatives serving their corporate masters.
...what he said.
You got it right, Birdman!
You might also want to read about the law of unintended consequences.
The laws of unintended consequences are powerful indeed and have done a lot of damage to the world. But Woody, are you arguing that therefore we should no longer try to make social or economic progress in the United States as the Tea Bagger/Beck/Palin troyka seems to feel?
What kind of world would that produce? What would the medical profession be like if we gave up trying to make progress for fear of the unintended damage some new drug or procedure might cause?
Tom Freidman had a very interesting column yesterday about 2 new technologies in the energy field that are very promising. They came about in spite of this country having no energy policy except waging war in the ME to protect the flow of oil. Maybe this is the right way to do it, but i keep imagining what a policy that gives a little incentive to new ways of doing thing might produce. Progress perhaps?
What does the tea party want except to not pay taxes and no socialism?
As David Brooks wrote in his column, "The Wal-Mart Hippies," they are defined much more by what they don't want than what they do.
The left in the 60's were defined by opposition to the war and the establishment sucks. They thought if we can dump both of them all will be right with the world.
The Tea Party hates the establishment and wants to cut taxes and if that can happen then all will be right with the world.
It is always easier to be against an idea than to come up with something new.
In the end the left did come up with issues they were in favor of...civil rights, women's rights and saving the environment. It will be interesting to see if the Tea Party can come up with policies they are in favor of.
Golf is a game predicated on the principle of unintended consequences. You can define it as anything over par.
How about motorcycles and this law? Where would be get organs for transplanting?
If you look at legislation today and re-read history, you can assume just about all law is a compromise. We are a compromised people. As Seinfeld once said, "Have you been down to the Motor Vehicle Department lately." I'm wondering if they have the average person correct...
I'll take a compromise over "Just say no and no taxes please."
Post a Comment